Scott A. Rosen

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing its motion to add its parent company as a plaintiff after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued the omission was a misnomer, while the respondent argued it was an attempt to add a new party.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the appellant was seeking to add a new party rather than correct a misnomer, which is prohibited by section 21 of the Limitations Act, 2002 after a limitation period has expired.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an appeal book endorsement awarding costs to the respondent.

The respondent was awarded costs in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed a damage award made under s. 6(6)(d) of the Arthur Wishart Act, arguing the respondent was not entitled to recover $82,127.49 paid to clear a prior franchisee's debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the payment constituted a loss incurred in acquiring, setting up, and operating the franchise, and was therefore compensable under the Act.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the appeal, agreed with the reasons of the motion judge, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, arguing the motion judge erred in ordering a $725,000 payment in cash and seeking to rescind the agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge failed to consider evidence that the parties intended the sum to be paid via security, such as a promissory note or guarantee, rather than cash.

The judgment was amended accordingly, but the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the request to rescind the settlement agreement was rejected.

The respondent had a claim against a company that went into receivership.

A vesting order transferred the debtor's assets to the appellant, expunging the respondent's claim against those assets.

The appellant obtained an Order to Continue the proceedings under Rule 11 to pursue a counterclaim against the respondent.

The motion judge varied the Rule 11 order to allow the respondent to pursue its original claim against the appellant as a stand-alone claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a Rule 11 order is purely procedural and cannot create substantive rights that were expunged by the vesting order.

The respondent was limited to asserting its claim by way of set-off against the appellant's counterclaim.

The appellant franchisors appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent franchisees rescission of their franchise agreement and damages under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The franchisors argued they had substantively complied with disclosure requirements by providing information piecemeal over several months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act strictly requires disclosure in a single document delivered at one time.

The Court also found that the franchisees did not affirm the contract by continuing to operate the business briefly to mitigate losses after serving the notice of rescission, as statutory rescission operates differently from equitable rescission.